Category: movie-reviews

Last week I saw three movies, all of which were family films. I wonder what ties the three films I’ve seen this week together.

Project Almanac is a found-footage sci-fi film about a group of teenagers who build a time machine and play with it.

First, the positives. As one can read from the logline I’ve just produced, this is an interesting premise. Wouldn’t anyone in high school wish they had a time machine? These kids, obviously would be describing their experiences through references to other time-travellers in pop culture. Which they do and it works in a meta way.

Also, the main characters are actually really good actors. But even that doesn’t stop them from losing believability from the first of a few problems with this movie.

They don’t talk like teenagers. They almost do, but to the ear of someone just out of high school, I can’t say this was plausible. I know that they were trying to appeal to a younger audience so the swearing kids their age would do, which their parents won’t admit to, had to be cut out.

Secondly, it’s a found footage movie. These characters have to film everything in order for us to catch on. No word of a lie, they even film themselves alone watching footage to bring an atmospheric moment. Why? I know that young people are supposed to be this YouTube age of filming any stupid thing they can find, but this is ridiculous.

Found footage can work, but only when it makes sense. If it doesn’t, the filmmaker should know to cut to a cinematic objective camera. There are times in this movie when the camera is watching two characters from a distance have a quiet conversation, and you can hear every single word. See District 9 for details on how it’s done right.

Finally, and this is the one that saddens me the most, the female characters come across as idiots.

This is the third time this week that I’ve seen this in a movie! Hollywood has a problem!

It’s the boys who build the time machine, while it’s the girls who push them into using it on humans, using themselves as leverage. One girl obviously has to fall in love with the protagonist. I know they’re putting across some form of Romeo and Juliet doomed young love. But, I don’t see anything in these characters, in their painfully forced, found-footage character moments, that indicates that they have some reason to fall for one another.

All of the women in this film are attractive. Most of them are shown in underwear, or worse, at some stage. This gets doubly stupid when one realises that these sexy moments of teenagers are being picked up by  a real camera! Did I tell you that this movie was produced by Michael Bay? The guy who will find any excuse to drape a hot girl over a car.

A lot of the stuff that I’ve mentioned has been done in cinema before, the misogynistic acts of the main characters are amended (sort of) and it is true that a lot of this stupid sexist stuff is unfortunately realistic.

But I am sick and tired of the way girls are treated in movies. If you want a movie to show just how awesome a female character can be, just watch Kill Bill, Jackie Brown or Pulp Fiction. Wait a minute. Quentin Tarantino, a writer/director many say is a copycat whose movies are a bad influence on young people, has made some great girl-power films! Interesting.

All in all, though the climax and some of the time-travel stuff was pretty cool, I couldn’t get behind this movie.

N.B It is somewhat ironic that Michael Bay’s Transformers franchise has been so cataclysmic-ally successful in China and yet now he has decided to produce a film with a central element being time-travel, a subject illegal to show on screen in the People’s Republic.

Recommended Scenario: If you really like time-travel movies and imitators of The Goonies.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.                                                                                       

Back in 1999 the Wachowskis released their most famous work, The Matrix, to great critical and commercial success. This was followed by two lackluster sequels and they haven’t made anything so successful since. (On a side note, I loved the brilliantly written and edited Cloud Atlas.)

Now they attempt to recapture that old glory with their latest foray into science fiction, Jupiter Ascending. This is an action movie of someone who thinks that they are human, but strange people come to them. They show this person that they can be so much more if they believe in themselves, to the point where they can stop bad guys from harvesting humans as an energy source.

Yes. That is also a fitting logline of The Matrix. Don’t get me wrong though. These are different movies.

The Matrix  involved metaphysical debates about existence in the modern and future age, sometimes with an unfortunate degree of pretentiousness. Jupiter Ascending is, in one sense, a more simple movie. Aliens are going to destroy the world. Mila Kunis and Channing Tatum have to stop them.

On the other hand, this is a very complicated film. These aliens are led by aristocratic siblings who are squabbling over their rights to Earth. They all have weird names (again, like The Matrix) and their evil/good schemes get so fiendishly complicated, I’m still not sure what was going on as I write this. And yet somehow it follows all the cliches of epic sci-fi.

So the big epic space story is a little confusing (which is not necessarily a bad or a good sign, depending on what you like), but what about the more human element? What about our heroes?

Channing Tatum plays a Lichen, ex-legionnaire (it’s explained what that means in the movie), who is sent to protect the titular protagonist Jupiter, played by Mila Kunis.

Both these actors are talented and they do their best with these roles. But Tatum’s character is so boring and normal, that the chops he showed in Foxcatcher are difficult to spot under his growling. Yes, his character growls.

And Jupiter? While it makes sense that she’ll be a little clueless, considering she is a human in an adventure far bigger than herself, there is no word that can be used to describe her that is so fitting as moronic. She’s constantly needing to be rescued. She makes big defiant, “I’m-going-to-do-things-my-way” decisions that end up risking literally billions of lives. She constantly pines for Tatum despite his refusals to go out with someone with her power. And, while she does have an arc which means she ends up appreciating her normal life a little more, which is always a good arc, wouldn’t it be inspiring for her to actually take some action to continue defending other planets from annihilation in the same way she did with Earth. Well she doesn’t! She cleans a toilet!

This is especially confusing considering The Wachowski’s track record of encouraging the treating of people of different sexes and sexual orientations with respect. But this is just dumbass-in-distress material from the 1960s.

While the movie tries to deceive you as to who the bad guy is (everyone’s got bad in them, its message being), it also makes it very clear from the beginning through the script’s partly clumsy, parly excellently world-building dialogue, that the real villain, whose character name I can’t remember, is played by Eddie Redmayne.

Redmayne’s performance in The Theory of Everything earlier this year was definitely worthy of an Oscar. But as what’s-his-name he swings from good OTT, to they-really-should-have-used-a-different-take OTT. I promise you, everyone in the cinema, myself included, laughed out loud at one particular moment of his silliness. Although, I have to say, if this is the worst performance of his career, I’ll take it.

The Wachowskis once again deliver a beautiful looking film, with their trade-mark slow-mo and costumes that wouldn’t look out of place at a Genesis concert. It also has the genuinely thrilling action we’ve come to expect from them. But at best it’s nothing more than a bit of sci-fi summer fun that’s been pushed back to February. If you want more than that, I suggest you head elsewhere.

Recommended Scenario: If you want to switch off your brain and go for a cinematic swing. Or if you can’t get the switch to work, go for Cloud Atlas.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.                                                                                       

This is a pointless review. More pointless than the ones I have previously written. Not only have thousands of more influential and better critics given their two cents on whether or not this movie is worth seeing or not, but if you were going to watch this movie, chances are my opinion won’t change your mind. Nonetheless, duty calls.

Fifty Shades of Grey is the story of an everyday, boring woman who begins a sexual relationship with an equally boring vitruvian billionaire, who happens to be into some kinky stuff.

People are up in arms about this movie. Does it put across an unhealthy image of BDSM couples? Does it belittle women? Does it encourage intrarelationship abuse? These questions have no real answers. One person’s sexism is another’s feminism. Critics walked out of initial screenings of The Wolf of Wall Street partly for its portrayal of women and yet I read an excellent article by a female critic explaining why she saw the film as feminist.

There are real issues in Hollywood and beyond with the treatment of women. You can find some great pieces online which supports this point.

I’ll see if I can answer the aforementioned questions. But really who cares what my beliefs on those issues are, when I’m reviewing a film that is absolutely dreadful!

I have said that the main character in this movie is boring. I mean it. I cared nothing for this woman. She is stupidly shy at the beginning and comes across as whiny in the second half. And she never stops biting her lip!

Mr Grey of the title is also tedious. This is every woman’s dream (apparently). A man who has power, money, a cracking body and yet has something missing… you.

The writing is atrocious. So many double-entendres (almost as bad as Poison Ivy in Batman and Robin), completely unrealistic scenarios and characters. I have not read the worldwide bestseller on which this movie is based, but so many people have told me that it is written as if it basically the author’s sexual fantasies.

Now this is fine. Guys have had their way with their pornographically perfect versions of female characters before (see any film by Michael Bay or Frank Miller for confirmation), so maybe it’s time to flip the tables.

Speaking of porn, let’s talk about the reason you’re still reading this review. You want to hear about the sex.

Like the rest of the film, these scenes are well shot. On balance this is the most interesting stuff in the entire picture and what made the book so popular from word of mouth. Sex is a natural act which conveys strong human drama and therefore, when used artistically, I have no problem with it whatsoever.

However, there is an incredible amount of double-standards here. There’s no shortage of shots of the protagonist’s breasts and Mr Grey’s well toned chest, but barely anything of each other’s genitals. Also, these scenes are not erotic in the slightest.

This film could work in one of two ways. A tragic story about the rise and fall of a relationship, due to the lack of emotional connection, a satire on control struggles between men and women. Or porn. Instead it tries to pull of the romantic date movie while going a little bit into the first and really not enough into the latter.

The ending tried to save some dignity for the whole project. But I was already bored to tears.

Two things I can say are good in the film. The soundtrack has popular songs done in a sexual cadence and they’re pretty good. Also, like I said, it’s pretty well shot. But this isn’t exactly a film school in itself like many great movies.

Yet who knows. Maybe I’m behind the times. Many didn’t like Stanley Kubrick’s sex-filled odysseys A Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut at first, but now they’re classics. Maybe we’re all missing some important message. And if you see something, more power to you.

Until then, this is a boring mess which I found insulting, not so much to my feminist sensibilities (though they felt twisted) but to my ears, eyes and watch.

Despite this, people (particularly women) will see it in their millions (Cineworld was packed). All expecting something they’re not going to get.

Recommended Scenario: To prove I’m not a sex-hating prude, I’ll recommend an engaging and great film that has some properly erotic sex scenes. Mulholland Drive. You may not like it, but it beats this film no matter who you are. What wasted potential.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.                                                                                       

Confusingly enough this is one of the few big action monsters to not be a sequel right now.

Big Hero 6 is a story based on a Marvel Comic book about Hiro, a fourteen year old boy, and a superhero-esque adventure he goes on with a kind medical robot, named Baymax.

People have been going absolutely crazy for this film. And I can definitely see why. The characters are memorable, the animation fluid and the humour excellent.

Baymax is one of those CG characters, like Gollum or Wall-E, whose existence could be a pleasurable bonus to a solid movie, or a pain in the backside like many of my friends predicted he would be.

I run a strict no spoiler policy. All I will reveal is that this movie does not let up from the moment it starts. It also becomes a bit of a tear-jerker at times. Hiro is a boy we can sympathise with as he doesn’t mope when things go bad, though we can see that things go really bad for him.

Two problems exist for me. For one, why in this Disney Superhero Movie that eventually walks into the superhero genre do I not see The Incredibles anywhere? (Seriously, that deserves a sequel more than Cars or Monsters Inc did.)

The second is that the dialogue, though involving and mostly realistic for the wonderfully put together characters to say, does a few too many exposition dumps and sometimes comes into play when a moment could be sweet and quiet. Exposition is not necessarily a bad thing. But the characters have to speak it in a way that feels natural. See David Fincher’s work for more information. Of course, don’t do that if you’re in the intended audience for Big Hero 6.

Overall, while this may not be the best animated superhero film, this is a particularly solid family film that I think people of all ages will enjoy.

I’ve reviewed three family films over the course of three days. Next week let’s counteract the kid-friendliness with Fifty Shades of Grey!

Recommended Scenario: If you want your emotions to be affected by the mascot for Michelen Tyres.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.                                                                                       

Be warned before seeing this movie. It is a musical.

Into the Woods is a Disney, live-action, musical amalgamation of the Grimm Fairy Tales, some of which have already been done by Disney. The story weaves between Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, Rapunzel and Jack and the Beanstalk.

An interesting thing I was thinking about during this film was that Cinderella is about to be turned into a live-action movie later this year again by Disney. Hollywood once again showing its full range of creativity.

The whole thing is based on a Stephen Sondheim stage production and one can see its theatre origins occasionally in staging and dialogue which  can be to the film’s detriment. But because it’s Sondheim, the man who brought us Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, the songs are good. They are not quite on the level of some musicals, but they are reasonably catchy.

And the songs bring me onto my next point. They are sung excellently by the cast, some of whom strangely have American accents which I object, but in a recording studio prior to lip-synching on the film’s gorgeous sets and locations.

While the old lip-synching methods used since Singin’ in the Rain mean that the song is pitch-perfect, I find that the spontaneity of singing live on set, as done so well in Les Miserables, gave the singing extra dramatic weight that is hard to replicate when dubbing.

This dramatic weight would have leant itself to Into the Woods as it is a dramatic story. This doesn’t feel like a Disney film. In a good way. We’ve seen the clichés of “Happily Ever After” more times than we can count and this film’s third act challenges them by showing that actions have consequences. This won’t sit well with some people, but I loved it. I believe that this is a message that should be given to adults as well as children.

If you have young children, take them to Shaun the Sheep this month as Into the Woods can be a little scary, both in terms of its atmosphere and its message.

Recommended Scenario: When you realise that life is no fairy tale.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.                                                                                       

Wallace & Gromit is one of the most universally liked creations in media. Their adventures are epic in size, but somehow relatable and small. So how do the hijinks a minor character from one of their original adventures hold up?

Shaun the Sheep Movie is based on the recent TV programme about the little adventures of the title character amongst his flock, a sheep-herding dog (who isn’t a sheepdog confusingly) and a farmer on a farm. The story surrounds Shaun attempting to take a day off from his mundane daily routine, with terrible consequences.

First of all, two major props to this movie. For one, Aardman Animations are still using their beautiful claymation technique and style. It’s absolutely delightful to see that CGI, though it is an excellent medium, is not the only form of animation still used.

Secondly, this, like the TV show, is a silent film! The characters express themselves through grunts, groans and gasps similar to that of The Sims video game. I love this. Silent comedy is one of the many strong-points in Aardman’s creations.

And comedy it brings. There were points in this film where I laughed harder than I have laughed in a cinema in years. And I was pretty much alone in the cinema.

There are no big morals in this film that you can’t find in most family films, but it’s certainly a good one for kids. There isn’t really much anyone can not like in this film.

One thing I didn’t particularly like were some of the songs in the film. I suppose they tried to represent the story through every style of music, but on a number of occasions they were unnecessary. Of course there were some which added to the comedy, and I certainly don’t want to censor those!

Overall, this is an excellent little romp. It’s not as ground-breaking as The Lego Movie and one can debate its worth against Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, though it is nice to see a full-length silent claymation comedy from the great artists that are Aardman Animations.

Recommended Scenario: When you’re over the age of four and you want to have a laugh.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.                                                                                       

Now that I have gone through the majority of this year’s Oscar picks which were left until January to come out in Britain, let’s re-immerse ourselves in some light-hearted violence!

Kingsman: The Secret Service is a comedy spy film from the people who brought us the comedy super-hero series Kick-Ass and is the story of a young man who is taken under the wing of a secret agent played by Colin Firth.

First of all, the positives. This is a very, very cool movie, not just because of a top-form Firth. The action is crisp, fluid and most importantly visible. Watch this back-to-back with a camera-shake heavy film like Taken 3 and you know what we’ve been missing from a lot of recent action movies.

The acting is pretty decent as well. Most of the characters are stereotypes, but that is precisely the point. The whole film is a tribute to the campy and OTT films of yesteryear, while also poking fun at it. So like all great spoofs, it respects and understands the genre it is representing, while also seeing its cliches and foibles.

There are noticeable downsides however. I don’t think it has enough jokes in it. While it does have a few good ones and jabs at old spy movies, a significant part of the movie takes itself seriously (which I suppose is a joke in itself). The dialogue sometimes feels very expository and doesn’t contain the zingers I feel it could have had.

A number of the characters feel like they didn’t have enough time put into them as well. Mild spoiler here, but one character does one helpful thing leading up to the climax of the movie and then spends most of the rest of the time walking about until the end.

And while making cliches is part of the joy of this film, one major one is the base story, young unlikely hero taken up by older mentor and yet no jokes are made of it.

This movie was very much in the vein of Edgar Wright’s Cornetto Trilogy, except for its lacking of brilliant dialogue. I suppose though that a compelling comedy which doesn’t try hard enough to make you laugh than a boring, overrated one which tries way too hard (I’m looking at you, Austin Powers!).

There have been a number of spy comedies, among which this is one of the best. However there hasn’t been a great one just yet.

Recommended Scenario: When you’ve grown up and realised that Stormbreaker wasn’t really that good.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.                                                                                       

This is my fifth review of the year and the third biopic nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. I’m not sure what that tells us.

This true story is that of world-renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and his first wife Jane as they both deal over the years with his deterioration at the hands of a terrible illness.

Eddie Redmayne portrays Stephen Hawking from his days as a PHD student in Cambridge till after his rise to fame after writing his bestselling book, A Brief History of Time. And he does absolutely brilliantly. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a medical condition which causes loss of motor skills in many thousands around the world and caused even more, myself included, to suffer the Ice Bucket Challenge. Over the course of the film you see Redmayne portray how Hawking was transformed by ALS from an able-bodied young man to a much older paralysed one in a way that never seems forced.

Not to be ignored is Felicity Jones as his first wife Jane, who wrote the book on which the film is based. She does a great job at showing the strain a marriage can have when confronted with such a debilitating disorder.

There is no bad guy in this movie. One could argue the only nemesis to Professor Hawking is time, a phenomenon he has spent his life studying.

His studies are explained in layman’s terms which help you understand while not distracting you from the story’s focus, the relationship between the two main characters.

There are conflicting reports on the nature of Stephen Hawking. Some have said that he is boastful and arrogant about his own genius. This film doesn’t really delve into that, but doesn’t ever deny it. Considering nobody portrayed in the film has publicly voiced any complaints against The Theory of Everything, its accuracy is not something I can comment on.

I don’t believe that this film is the best of the year, however its acting is fantastic, its direction clever and its pacing, for the most part (considering it is a biopic of a 72 year old scientist) very good.

All in all, a joyous look at a relationship shattered by a harsh reality.

Recommended Scenario: When you want to learn about physics, medicine and love. (I ordered those three in ascending order of complexity.)

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.                                                                                       

Though this film is set against the background of Olympic wrestling and stars Magic Mike, Brick Tamland and The Hulk, this is not a cheery sports movie.

Foxcatcher is the true story of Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum), an Olympic Gold Medal winning wrestler who was taken under the wing of a new coach, eccentric millionaire John Du Pont (Steve Carell).

First of all, before watching this movie, you must be prepared for a slow and steady start. There are a number of scenes which at the time feel like they don’t do anything.

However, as the runtime reaches the middle of the second act, you realise that this film is an army creeping over a hill behind you.. Before you know it, it strikes.

This isn’t the first movie of its type to crank up tension to near breaking point without the audience noticing at first. And for that reason, it’s by no means a Best Picture Winner. It is certainly worth a nomination however.

The scenes in which either wrestling technique is explained or practised are wonderful. They complement a solid, quiet script which makes you feel like you are there with the wrestling team Foxcatcher headlined by Channing Tatum as Mark Schultz, Mark Ruffalo as his mentor brother, David, and Steve Carell as the coach.

Many have been astounded by Carell’s performance, and they should be. His ability to completely transform his lovable funny exterior under excellent make-up to a chilling over-bearing man is truly exciting. However, keep an eye on Ruffalo and Tatum. These are serious talents who give wonderfully restrained performances.

While Foxcatcher has some possible problems with pacing, depending on taste, I believe it is a highly worthwhile little heart-racer.

Recommended Scenario: When you want to be shaken by a tragic and surprising story, which also has wrestling in it.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.                                                                                       

American Sniper follows the true story of Chris Kyle, played by Bradley Cooper, whose career as a sniper in Iraq allowed him to clock more confirmed sniper kills than any other American soldier.

This Clint Eastwood directed film is another delve into the effects war has on the soldiers who fight in them. And a pretty decent one to boot, however it does have some problems.

It’s unfortunate when a movie’s “been done”. It shouldn’t really undermine the quality of the product, but you feel you’ve got to compare it to something else. Full Metal Jacket (1987), due to its long production period, suffered from this very problem. Stanley Kubrick’s perfectionism set the film back so long that upon its release, many were tired of the Vietnam War in movies. Years later, though Full Metal Jacket has gained the praise it deserves and American Sniper has a Best Picture Oscar nod*, history has sadly repeated itself.

The Hurt Locker (2008) covered the same ground that this movie does. There’s a slight twist in the end, but it’s broadly the same.

Just because that’s the case doesn’t mean American Sniper‘s worth is diminished. I would still highly recommend it. Also, it is true that there are no “original” ideas.

One positive to this film is that it contains a superb Bradley Cooper performance. In fact, it’s his best to date. Another was Eastwood’s directing. While Hereafter and Trouble with the Curve were more considerable missteps in his post Gran Torino career, he has proved to still be the king of a cool movie.

American Sniper is moving and does a pretty good job in showing the effects of post-traumatic-stress disorder. However, I believe it could have been explored a little more. And though the ugliness of war is shown, the controversy of this particular struggle was rarely seen.

I would recommend it, but remember that war is a tad greyer than this film makes out to be.

* Gone Girl and A Most Wanted Man were snubbed this year. They were both better than this film.

Recommended Scenario: Near the end of a week-long, depressing, chronological marathon of the great and good war movies.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.